Evolutionary Phonology: Some Implications for Models of Grammar
Juliette Blevins Paris lectures on Evolutionary Phonology & Sound Change Typology Labex EFL, Chaire International 2016 Lecture I
What is Evolutionary Phonology?
2 Phonology
Phonology is traditionally defined as the study of sound patterns of the world’s languages. These sound patterns include: contrastive sound inventories; patterns and domains of sound distribution; conditioned variants of sounds; and sound patterns as aspects of human cognition.
3 Descriptive phonological grammars
• Describe phonological contrasts • Describe phonological categories • Describe phonological combinations • Describe phonological alternations
There is significant agreement in all of these areas. 4 Extra-descriptive phonological grammars
• May claim to explain sound patterns • May posit phonological universals • May posit abstract non-occurring sound patterns • May claim description is psychologically real • May make predictions about possible grammars • May make predictions about learnability
There is significant disagreement in all of these areas. 5 One goal of Evolutionary Phonology
To summarize evidence from the diversity of phonological systems that may inform areas of disagreement in modeling phonological grammars, with special attention to the locus of explanation in phonological theory.
6 Some arguments in Evolutionary Phonology
I Arguments against • phonological universals in grammar • phonological markedness in grammar
II Arguments for • language-specific phonology
• extra-grammatical explanations 7 Some substantive phonological universals
• Distinctive features
• The sonority scale
• The prosodic hierarchy
8 Distinctive feature theory Distinctive features are the ultimate primitives in phonological representations. They define contrastive sound inventories, phonotactics, and alternations. They are universal aspects of phonological grammars because they are innate.
CHOMSKY AND HALLE 1968 9 Emergent feature theory Distinctive features are language-specific learned properties of phonological systems. They are similar across languages because they emerge from generalizations across surface sound patterns which themselves tend to reflect aspects of universal phonetics.
10 MIELKE 2008 Evidence for emergent feature theory
• There are many sound patterns that innate features cannot describe
• There is no evidence for innate features
• Generalizations about sound patterns are better treated with emergent features
11 MIELKE 2008, pace HALL 2010 A well studied sound pattern
A sound change in Balto-Slavic, Indo-Iranian
*s > ʃ / {r,u,K,i}__
K is any velar stop; ʃ > x in Slavic, ʂ in Old Indic
An alternation in Sanskrit
s → ʂ / {r,u,k,i}__ 12 WHITNEY 1889, PEDERSEN 1895 An unnatural class ? {r,u,K,i} is a not a natural class.
SPE [-anterior, -low] has been proposed for Sanskrit. Though /r/ triggers retroflexion, it is described as alveolar or cerebral, consistent with [+anterior]. Further, [-low] incorrectly includes /o/ in Balto-Slavic.
Post-SPE feature systems do not specify velar stops for [anterior] and /r/ is neither dorsal nor [+high].
13 ZWICKY 1970, VENNEMANN 1974 A phonetic hypothesis
The sounds {r,u,K,i} may constitute a natural class in terms of their acoustic effects on a following /s/ sound.
From an acoustic perspective, {r,u,K,i} may share the property of “lowering the frequencies of the energy concentration in a following s”
VENNEMANN 1974:95
14 Evidence for the phonetic hypothesis
Acoustic analysis of fricatives after {r,u,K,i} and non-{r,u,K,i} sounds supports the phonetic unity of this class of sounds. Fricatives after {r,u,K,i} have: (i) an initial concentration of fricative noise energy below 3500hz; (ii) lower continuous concentration of noise energy; and (iii) greater overall intensity of fricative noise spectra. Those after non-{r,u,K,i} do not.
LONGERICH 1998 15 An emergent feature
The {r,u,K,i} sound-change reflects acoustic properties of /s/ sounds when pronounced after {r,u,K,i} in old Indo-European dialects. The generalization that /r,u,k,i/ condition [ʂ] in Sanskrit is learned through generalizations over sound- meaning pairs. More generally, /r,u,K,i/ is an emergent natural class defined by the emergent feature associated with lowering the frequencies of a following /s/. 16 An unnatural class in Evenki
{v, s, g} → {m, n, ŋ}/ [+nasal]__
/oron-vi/ oronmi ‘my reindeer’ /ŋinakin-si/ ŋinakinni ‘your dog’ /oron-gAtʃin/ oronŋotʃin ‘like a reindeer’ Cf. /amkin-du/ amkindu ‘bed-DAT’ /ekun-da/ ekunda ‘somebody, something’
MIELKE 2008, NEDJALKOV 1997 17 Features in phonological grammars
If a phonological theory of grammar fails “to provide a mechanism for making distinctions between more or less natural classes of segments, this failure would be sufficient reason for rejecting the theory as being incapable of attaining the level of explanatory adequacy.”
CHOMSKY AND HALLE 1968:335 18 The Sonority Hierarchy
vowels > glides > liquids > nasals > obstruents
The sonority hierarchy is claimed to be a central organizing component of sound patterns, determining syllabification, syllable contact, and alternations. The sonority hierarchy is a universal aspect of phonological grammars because it is innate.
JESPERSEN 1904, PRINCE & SMOLENSKY 1993, PARKER 2002 19 The Sonority Hierarchy is real
• Tashlhiyt Berber syllabification [tχznas] vs. [tzdmas] DELL & ELMEDLAOUI 1985, 1988 • Perception experiments [mla] vs. [mda] BERENT ET AL. 2009, BERENT 2013a, 2013b • Silent reading experiments
COOPER & ROSS 1975, PINKER & BIRDSONG 1979, PARKER 2002 20 But is it phonological or phonetic? vowels > glides > liquids > nasals > obstruents
Parker (2002) measured 5 correlates of sonority in Spanish and English: intensity, frequency of F1, total segment duration, peak intraoral air pressure, and combined oral plus nasal air flow. Intensity values yielded a correlation of at least .97 with typical sonority indices. He concludes that sonority is best defined in terms of a linear regression equation derived from the observed intensity results. 21 Sonority is real because intensity is real
• Tashlhiyt Berber syllabification [tχznas] vs. [tzdmas] DELL & ELMEDLAOUI 1985, 1988 • Perception experiments [mla] vs. [mda] BERENT ET AL. 2009, BERENT 2013a, 2013b • Silent reading experiments
COOPER & ROSS 1975, PINKER & BIRDSONG 1979, PARKER 2002 22 But phonological sonority is different
• Lexical syllabification: English [kɔldrn] vs. [læntrn] LADEFOGED 1975 • Sonority reversals: Russian [rta] ‘mouth.gen’ vs. [tri] ‘three’ CLEMENTS 1990, MANN 2014 • Russian vs. English perception of [lba]: 1 or 2 syllables BERENT ET AL. 2007 • Lebanese Arabic epenthesis: l > N > r > S > T KENSTOWICZ 1994 • Variability in Modern Standard Arabic complex codas: 42% adhere to SSP; 49% reversals; 9% plateaus TAMIMI & SHBOUL 2013 23 Phonological sonority
Phonological sonority scales are language- specific learned properties of phonological grammars. They are similar across languages because they emerge from generalizations across surface sound patterns which themselves tend to reflect aspects of universal phonetics, including phonetic sonority, a quantifiable measure of segmental intensity.
24 The Prosodic Hierarchy
Prosodic domains are universal fixed hierarchical categories in phonological representations. They define domains of contrast, phonotactics, and alternations. The prosodic hierarchy is a universal aspect of phonological grammars because it is innate.
SELKIRK 1981, 1984, 1986; NESPOR & VOGEL 1986 25 Middle of the Prosodic Hierarchy
P Phonological Phrase | ω Prosodic Word | ϕ Foot | σ Syllable
• The set of categories is fixed and universal. • No level can be skipped; there is strict layering. 26 The prosodic word is a foot
Minimal word is a minimal foot. Prosodic bulking may bring words to up to word-minimum. MCCARTHY & PRINCE 1986
FTBIN and PW=FT PRINCE & SMOLENSKY 1993
If degenerate σL feet are allowed, then sub-minimal σL words are allowed. HAYES 1995 27 The prosodic word is not a foot
Language/Family Foot-type Minimal reference Word Chama trochees CV Key 1968 Tacanan from end Warao trochees CV Osborn 1966 Paezan from end Nengone trochees CV Tryon 1967a Austronesian from end Dehu trochees CV Tryon 1967b Austronesian from start Ono trochees CV Phinnemore 1985 Western Huon from start
There is no evidence of degenerate feet in any of these languages. 28
GARRETT 1999 Lurking between foot and word Prosodic domains between word and foot are attested (Bickel et al. 2009), and, in rare cases, serve as prosodic templates.
In Iquito (Zaparoan), the minimal prosodic word is a foot, but the preferred word is a colon (= two feet), and the colon is the prosodic domain of metrical tone assignment. If lexical tone occurs within the final colon, no metrical tone is assigned; if it precedes the final colon metrical tone is assigned to the stressed syllable (Michael 2011). 29 Iquito colon as prosodic domain
a. (ˌpi)(ˈrú.su) 'electric eel’ b. (ˌpi.ru)(ˈsú.ka) 'electric eels’ c. (ˌkí.pi)(ˈru.su) 'my electric eel’ d. kí(ˌpi.ru)(ˈsú.ka) 'my electric eels’ e. kí(ˌpi.ru)(ˌsu.ka)(ˈhá.ta) 'with my electric eels’ /kí-/ ‘my’ (lexical tone) /pirusu/ ‘electric eel’ (toneless)
MICHAEL 2011 30 Lurking within the word
In Limbu (Sino-Tibetan), more than one distinct word domain is motivated between the foot and the phrase.
Major prosodic words are the domain of word stress and regressive coronal-to-labial place assimilation.
Minor prosodic words, which do not include prefixes, are the domain of medial onset l → r, and ø → ʔ/V_V.
SCHIERING, BICKEL AND HILDEBRANT 2010
31 Missing levels of the hierarchy
In Vietnamese (Austroasiatic) nothing distinguishes monosyllabic lexical units from other syllables, and nothing distinguishes polysyllabic lexical units from polysyllabic phrasal strings. There is no evidence for a prosodic word in this language.
SCHIERING, BICKEL AND HILDEBRANT 2010 32 Language-specific prosodic domains
“As an alternative to the Prosodic Hierarchy framework, we advocate a heuristic for cross-linguistic comparison in which prosodic domains are conceived of as language-particular, intrinsic and highly specific properties of individual phonological rules or constraints. This allows us to explore empirically the actual degree of variation to be encountered across prosodic systems. It turns out that the ‘word’ has no privileged or universal status in phonology, but only emerges through frequent reference of sound patterns to a given construction type in a given language.”
SCHIERING, BICKEL AND HILDEBRANT 2010:657 33 Emergent prosodic domains
Prosodic domains are best viewed as language- specific learned properties of phonological systems. They are similar across languages because they emerge from generalizations across surface sound patterns which themselves tend to reflect aspects of universal phonetics, including phonetic sonority (σ), rhythm (ϕ), prominence (ω), and intonation contours (P).
34 Non-Universal Grammar: Interim summary
• Distinctive features and natural and unnatural classes are emergent properties of phonological grammars; they are learned and language- specific.
• The sonority hierarchy reflects phonetic sonority, a measure of acoustic intensity. Phonological sonority hierarchies are learned and language-specific, and may deviate from phonetic scales.
• The prosodic word is an emergent property of phonological grammars. Prosodic domains are not uniform across languages. They are learned and language-specific.
35 Lecture II
Natural and Unnatural Sound Patterns
36 Phonological markedness in grammar
• Ranking of segments and/or contrasts e.g. u > y, *D: >> *T: • Ranking of sequences and/or prosodic types e.g. .CV. > .V., .CVC. > .VC. (= ONSET) • Ranking of alternations or lexical relations e.g. he:p/he:bən >> he:b/he:bən, he:m/ he:bən, he:bə/he:bən, etc. ‘lift!/to lift’
A ranking may be between two or more elements/values. 37 A ranking may be context-free or context sensitive. Central function of markedness
Common sound patterns tend to be phonetically natural sound patterns. Extra-descriptive grammars are formulated to incorporate some kind of phonetic naturalness into the grammar, usually by markedness constraints. Alternative approaches explain natural and unnatural sound patterns in terms of phonetic factors with no expression of phonological markedness within the grammar itself.
38 BLEVINS 2004, 2006, 2009, 2013 Correlates of phonological markedness
• Neutralization is to unmarked. • Typologically, marked implies unmarked. • Unmarked is more frequent than marked. • Unmarked shows more phonetic variability than marked: it has more allophones and is more susceptible to assimilation • Unmarked has more contrastive combinations than marked. • Unmarked (within OT) emerges under epenthesis, reduplication, and other phonological operations that are not constrained by Faithfulness.
39 HASPELMATH 2006 Coronals in consonant inventories
• Most spoken languages have /t/.
• Most spoken languages have /n/.
• Most spoken languages have at least one coronal stop that contrasts in place of articulation with another stop.
Typologically, coronal implies non-coronal, and is 40 therefore considered the unmarked place of articulation Coronals as unmarked consonants
Markedness in generative grammar PARADIS & PRUNET 1991 Coronal is the unmarked place of articulation.
Consonant Universal #4 HYMAN 2008 Every phonological system has coronal phonemes.
Markedness Hierarchies in OT PRINCE & SMOLENSKY 1993/2004 *[dorsal] >>*[labial]>>*[coronal]
41 Northwest Mekeo consonant inventory
Labial Palatal Velar Obstruents, voiceless p k voiced β g Nasals m ŋ Glides (w~o) (j~ɛ)
JONES 1995, 1998; BLEVINS 2009 42 Northwest Mekeo consonant allophones
/p/ a voiceless bilabial stop /β/ a voiced bilabial fricative; the main (free) variants are [b] and [v] /m/ a bilabial nasal continuant /k/ a voiceless velar stop /g/ a voiced velar stop; the main (conditioned) allophone is [dzj ] before /i/. /ŋ/ a velar nasal continuant with the occasional unconditioned variant [n] /w/ a vocoid approximant freely intervarying with [o] /j/ a palatal approximant (a glide) intervarying with [ɛ] 43 JONES 1998:559 Comparing Mekeo consonant inventories
NW MEKEO β p w/o g k m ŋ j/e
W MEKEO b p w g k m ŋ l
N MEKEO b f,w g,k m ŋ l
E MEKEO p f k ʔ/Ø m ŋ l
/t/, /d/, /s/, /n/ are absent in all varieties 44 Historical loss of coronals: *t > ø, *n > ŋ Proto-Oceanic Proto-Mekeo NW W N E *taliŋa 'ear' *aiŋa aina aina aina aina *tama 'father' *ama ama ama ama ama *tanoq 'earth' *aŋo aŋo aŋo aŋo aŋo *tau 'person' *au au au au au *tina 'mother' *iŋa ina ina ina ina *mata 'eye' *maa ma ma maa ma *mate 'dead' *mae mae mae mae mae *kita 'see' *ia ia ida ija isa 45 No coronals in Northwest Mekeo
• There are no coronal consonants in NW Mekeo; primary place contrast is labial vs. velar.
• There is no evidence that coronals are unmarked.
• The existence of velars and/or labials does not imply the existence of coronals.
• The Mekeo inventory type is rare, but it is not an impossible grammatical system. 46 BLEVINS 2009 Why do most languages have coronals?
• The tongue blade is an agile and speedy articulator • Coronals like /t/ and /n/ are easy to produce • Coronals contrast in more dimensions than other place features, including: manner (liquids!); place (anterior/ non-anterior); sub-articulator (apical/laminal) • Coronals are easy to distinguish from labials and velars • Coronals are relatively stable in many contexts • There are natural phonetic developments taking non- coronals to coronals, e.g. velar palatalization
47 There is significant agreement in all of these areas. Phonetic explanations and grammar
Grammatical models with violable constraints can describe rare systems. If there is no /t/ or /n/ in the input, faithfulness to this input can persist.
But in order to explain the rarity of these systems, these models must resort to external explanations, or import external explanations into the grammar. 48 Phonetics inside phonological grammars Why is /t/ common in sound inventories?
• P-maps encode perceptual distances between all segment pairs in all contexts STERIADE 2001, 2008
• *EFFORT expresses dispreference for physical effort involved in articulator movements. “The cost of violating this constraint is equal to the square of the magnitude of the transition, multiplied by a positive constraint weight.” FLEMMING 2001, 2004 49 Problems for phonetics in grammar
• Does not capture classical observation that speakers are more sensitive to phonemic contrasts than allophonic contrasts.
• Duplicates explanation inside and outside the grammar in the form of physical properties of speech production and perception.
• Involves complex computations in evaluation of all possible phonetic contexts, contrasts, and/or articulations. 50 Universal tendencies in sound inventories Universal tendencies in sound inventories can be explained external to the grammar in terms of segments and contrasts that are relatively easy to produce, relatively easy to perceive, and relatively stable in different phonetic contexts. Building these properties into phonological grammars appears misguided: there are strong tendencies but few absolutes; phonological categories may be compromised; duplication results; and grammars may become intractable. 51 Emergent inventories and modality
Under this approach, linguistic systems will tend to converge on segments and contrasts that are relatively easy to produce and perceive, and relatively stable in different contexts. This tendency is independent of the modality of the linguistic system and builds flexibility into the grammar.
DE BOER 2001; OUDEYER 2006; WEDEL 2011 52 Sign Language Inventories All sign languages make use of the hands as articulators and contrast distinct handshapes. Most sign languages contrast:
Grammatical encoding of coronals as unmarked consonants in spoken languages makes no predictions regarding handshape in signed
languages. Ease of articulation and perceptual 53 contrast fare better. Inventories: Implications for grammar
Categories and contrasts in phonological inventories that are extremely frequent or extremely rare can be explained in terms of grammar-external aspects of production and perception. While one can build these features into a grammar, there is no clear evidence that they are encoded in phonological grammars. Parallels in spoken and sign-language phonologies suggest modality-specific categories and contrasts resulting from similar external pressures. 54 The open syllable preference
“There are languages lacking syllables …with final consonants, but there are no languages devoid of syllables …with final vowels.” JAKOBSON 1962:526
“having only open syllables is preferred to not having only open syllables” VENNEMANN 1983:11-12
Syllable markedness PRINCE & SMOLENSKY 1993/2004 *CODA, NO-CODA A syllable must not have a coda
55 Open syllables are better than closed syllables Aslian syllable and word structure In some Aslian (Austroasiatic) languages, syllables with codas are preferred over syllables without codas word-finally.
In Semai (Central Aslian) most words fit a syllable template, where stress is always final:
(C3 V2 (C4) ). C1 V(:)1 C2 minor major
56 PHILLIPS 2013 Semai obligatory word-final codas
(C3 V2 (C4) ). C1 V(:)1 C2 minor major
mɑt ‘eye’ sə.lec ‘smooth’ li:p ‘to swallow’ mɑ.ni:ʔ ‘rain’ pɔ:c ‘to wait’ ŋ̩.ku:ʔ ‘thunder’ məŋ ‘spider’ sɑ.mi:w ‘bear’ sɛc ‘flesh’ mər.ɡɑs ‘tiger’ kəl.ʔũ:p ‘brain’
The minor vowel V2 is usually a short variable [ə], and less commonly short /a/, /i/ or /u/. It is never long. 57 Semai closed syllables are not heavy
(C3 V2 (C4) ). C1 V(:)1 C2 minor major
CV: is heavy Long vowels cannot occur in minor syllables. CVC is light CVC is a possible minor syllable mər.ɡɑs ‘tiger’
Therefore, the preference for word-final codas in Semai cannot be attributed to a preference for heavy stressed syllables or the weight-to-stress principle. 58 Jahai obligatory word-final codas In Jahai (Northern Aslian) most words fit a syllable template, where stress is always final:
(C3 V2 (C4) ). C1 V1 C2 minor major
cɛp ‘to catch’ kə.nec ‘comb’ mit ‘eye’ ka.wip ‘sun bear’ moh ‘nose’ təm.kal ‘male’
ros ‘liver’ kal.toŋ̩ ‘knee’ 59
BURENHULT 2001 Jahai obligatory word-final codas
Word-final syllables are always closed. This phonotactic is maintained in Malay loans: Malay Jahai gloss bunga buŋɛʔ ‘flower’ gula guləh ‘sugar’ ubi hobiʔ ‘tuber’ nasi nasiʔ ‘cooked rice’ lata lataʔ ‘waterfall’ pulau pulɔw ‘island’ lantai lantɛj ‘floor’ 60 BURENHULT 2000, 2001 Preference for closed syllables in Aslian
• Many Aslian languages require word-final closed syllables.
• Codas are not weight units.
• This phonotactic pattern is not accidental: it is productive as evidenced in loans.
• A preference for closed syllables is rare, but it is
not an impossible grammatical system. 61 Why do closed syllables imply open ones?
• CV (demi)syllables are articulatory and perceptual units
• C1V (demi)syllables are components of C1VC2 syllables • Production of C1VC2 includes production of C1V
• Perception of C1VC2 includes perception of C1V • CV syllables occur in early babbling as a consequence of gross motor skills • CV syllables are relatively stable in many contexts • There are many natural phonetic developments taking closed syllables to open syllables
62 There is significant agreement in all of these areas. Universal tendencies in phonotactics
Universal tendencies in phonotactics can be explained external to the grammar in terms of sequences of sounds that are relatively easy to produce, relatively easy to perceive, and relatively stable in different phonetic contexts. Building these properties into phonological grammars appears misguided: there are strong tendencies but few absolutes; ad hoc constraints are necessary when codas are obligatory; evolution of coda-less languages suggests language-specific priming.
63 BLEVINS 2004B, 2009 Emergent phonotactics and modality
Under this approach, linguistic systems will tend to converge on sequences of meaningless elements that are relatively easy to produce and perceive, and relatively stable in different contexts. This tendency is independent of the modality of the linguistic system and builds flexibility into the grammar.
64 DE BOER 2001; OUDEYER 2006; BLEVINS 2012 Sign Language Loco-tactics
Verbs with path movement (M) in sign languages use
distinct locations {L1,L2} to inflect for subject and object: Handshape / | \
L1 M L2
Since a path goes from one location to another, L1ML2 is the norm. If LML is a syllable, all syllables have codas. NO-CODA does not carry over to signed languages.
SANDLER 1989, ARONOFF, MEIR & SANDLER 2005 65 Phonotactics: Implications for grammar
Phonotactic patterns can be explained in terms of grammar-external aspects of speech production and perception. While one can build these features into a grammar, there is no clear evidence that they are encoded in phonological grammars in the form of markedness constraints. Significant differences in sequential organization of spoken and sign-language phonologies suggest modality- specific patterns resulting from different external pressures when the hands are articulators in the visual signing space. 66 What are phonological grammars?
Phonological grammars are not instantiations of:
• A universal distinctive feature system • A universal sonority hierarchy • A universal prosodic hierarchy • Universal markedness constraints that rank any of the above as more or less preferred
They appear to lack universal content. 67 What are phonological grammars?
Phonological grammars are instantiations of:
• Language-specific features and contrasts • Language-specific segment inventories • Language-specific syllable types • Language-specific prosodic hierarchies • Language-specific alternations
They resemble descriptive grammars 68 Phonological grammars may also be:
• Rich in phonetic detail • Sensitive to sound pattern frequency • Continuously changing • Different across speakers • Different across modalities, especially where learning is concerned
69 Phonetic detail in phonological grammars
• Incomplete neutralization PORT ET AL. 1981, O’DELL 1985, KLEBER 2011, ETC. • Use of fine phonetic detail in sound/word-recognition HAWKINS 2003; HAWKINS & NGUYEN 2003, 2004 • Durational differences in high vs. low frequency words BELL ET AL 2009, PLUMAEKERS 2005, GAHL 2008 • Change across the lifespan HARRINGTON ET AL. 2000; SANKOFF & BLONDEAU 2007
70 These facts are consistent with exemplar models of speech GAHL & YU 2006 Conclusions
Phonological grammars of spoken languages encode language-specific categories, distributions and generalizations over related sounds. They are similar, in many ways, to descriptive grammars, but may also include phonetic detail. Phonological properties attributed to Universal Grammar and, therefore, to individual grammars, are more variable than once believed. External explanations for many of these properties yield phonological grammars devoid of universal content. This allows sign languages to inform our general conception of phonological grammars. 71 Diversity and grammar
Phonological diversity in spoken language is not limitless, since sounds are made by the human vocal tract, and interpreted by human ears. However, within the limits of production and perception, great variation is observed in contrasts, distributions, and alternations. On close inspection, this variation tells us more about local factors contributing to the evolution of these sound patterns than about any intrinsic aspects of the phonological systems themselves. 72 Merci beaucoup!
Thank you very much! 73 Selected References
Abler, William. 1989. On the particulate principle of self-diversifying systems. Journal of Social and Biological Structures 12: 1-13. Anderson, Stephen R. 1981. Why phonology isn’t ‘natural’. Linguistic Inquiry 12: 493–539. Bach, Emmon & Robert T. Harms. 1972. How do languages get crazy rules? In Robert P. Stockwell & Ronald K.S. Macaulay (eds.), Linguistic change and generative theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 1–21. Bell, A., Brenier, J. M., Gregory, M., Girand, C., and Jurafsky, D. 2009. Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. Journal of Memory and Language, 60(1):92–111. Berent, I. 2013a. The Phonological Mind, Trends in Cognitive Science 17(7):319-27. Berent, I. 2013b. The Phonological Mind. Cambridge University Press. Berent, I., Lennertz, T., Smolensky, P., & Vaknin-Nusbaum, V. 2009. Listeners’ knowledge of phonological universals: Evidence from nasal clusters. Phonology, 26 , 75-108. Berent, I., Steriade, D., Lennertz, T., & Vaknin, V. 2007. What we know about what we have never heard: Evidence from perceptual illusions. Cognition, 104 , 591-630. Bickel, B., K. Hildebrant, & R. Schiering. 2009. The distribution of phonological word domains: a probabilistic typology. In J. Grijzenhout & B. Kabak (eds.) Phonological domains: Universals and Deviations, 47-75. Berlin: Mouton do Gruyter. Blevins, James and Juliette Blevins. 2009. Analogy in grammar: Form and acquisition. Oxford: OUP. Blevins, Juliette. 1995. The Syllable in Phonological Theory, Handbook of phonological theory, ed. by John Goldsmith, Basil Blackwell, London, 206-44. Blevins, Juliette. 2004a. Evolutionary phonology: the emergence of sound patterns, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blevins, Juliette. 2004b. A reconsideration of Yokuts vowels. International Journal of American Linguistics. 70:33-51. Blevins, Juliette. 2004c. The mystery of Austronesian final consonant loss. Oceanic Linguistics 43: 179-184. Blevins, Juliette. 2005a. The role of phonological predictability in sound change: Privileged reduction in Oceanic reduplicated substrings. Oceanic Linguistics 44:455-464. Blevins, Juliette. .2006. A theoretical synopsis of Evolutionary Phonology, Theoretical Linguistics 32, 117-165. Blevins, Juliette. 2008. Consonant epenthesis: natural and unnatural histories. In Jeff Good (ed.), Language universals and language change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 79-107. 74 Selected References
Blevins, Juliette. 2009a. Another universal bites the dust: Northwest Mekeo lacks coronal phonemes. Oceanic Linguistics 48: 264-73. Blevins, Juliette. 2009b. Structure-preserving sound change: A look at unstressed vowel syncope in Austronesian. in A. Adelaar & A. Pawley (eds.), Austronesian historical linguistics and culture history: a festschrift for Robert Blust, Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, 33-49. Blevins, Juliette. 2012. Duality of patterning: absolute universal or statistical tendency? Language and Cognition 4. Blevins, Juliette. 2014. Evolutionary Phonology: a holistic approach to sound change typology. In P. Honeybone and J. Salmons (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Historical Phonology. Blevins, Juliette. To appear. Areal sound patterns: From perceptual magnets to stone soup. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Areal Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blevins, Juliette and Andy Wedel. 2009. Inhibited sound change: An evolutionary approach to lexical competition. Diachronica 26.2: 143-83. Broselow, E. 1993. Language transfer and universals in second language epenthesis. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (eds.) Language transfer in language learning. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Broselow, E. 2015. The typology of position-quality interactions in loanword vowel insertion. In Y. Hsiao and L-H. Wee (eds.) Capturing Phonological Shades, 292-319. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Buckley, Eugene. 2000. On the naturalness of unnatural rules. Proceedings from the Second Workshop on American Indigenous Languages. UCSB working papers in linguistics, vol. 9. Bybee, J. L. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Cathcart, Chundra. 2012. Articulatory variation of the alveolar tap and implications for sound change. UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Report. 76-110. Chomsky, Noam and Morris Halle. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row. Clements, G. N. 1990. The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In John Kingston and Mary E. Beckman, eds. Papers in laboratory phonology 1: between the grammar and physics of speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 283-333. Cresci, Michela. 2014. The sound patterns of Camuno: Description and explanation in Evolutionary Phonology. PhD dissertation, CUNY. Cristia, A., J. Mielke, R. Daland, and S. Peperkamp. 2013. Similarity in the generalization of implicitly learned sound patterns. Laboratory Phonology 4(2): 259-285. Cooper, William E., and John Robert Ross. 1975. “World order.” In Robin E. Grossman, L. James San, and Timothy J. Vance, eds. Papers 75 from the parasession on functionalism. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. pp. 63-111. Selected References de Boer, Bart. 2000. Self orgnization in vowel systems. Journal of Phonetics 28: 441–465 Dell, François, and Mohamed Elmedlaoui. 1985. “Syllabic consonants and syllabification in Imdlawn Tashlhiyt Berber.” Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 7:105-30. Dell, François, and Mohamed Elmedlaoui. 1988. “Syllabic consonants in Berber: some new evidence.” Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 10:1-17. Egurtzegi, Ander. 2014. Towards a phonetically grounded diachronic phonology of Basque. PhD dissertation, University of the Basque Country. Ernestus, Mirjam. 2011. Gradience and categoricality in phonological theory. In M. Van Oostendorp, C. J. Ewen, E. Hume, and K. Rice (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology (pp. 2115-2136). Wiley-Blackwell. Ernestus, M. and Warner, N. (2011). An introduction to reduced pronunciation variants. Journal of Phonetics, 39:253–260 Fleischhacker, Heidi. 2001. Cluster-dependent epenthesis asymmetries. UCLA working papers in linguistics (Papers in phonology 5). 71–116. Fleischhacker, Heidi. 2005. Similarity in phonology: evidence from reduplication and loan adaptation. PhD dissertation, UCLA. Flemming, E. 2001. Scalar and categorical phenomena in a unified model of phonetics and phonology. Phonology, 18.1 , 7-44. Flemming, E. 2004. Contrast and perceptual distinctiveness. In B. Hayes, R. Kirchner, & D. Steriade (Eds.), Phonetically based phonology. Cambridge: CUP. 232-76. Fowler, C. A. 1988. Differential shortening of repeated content words produced in various communicative contexts. Language and Speech, 31:307–317. Gahl, S. 2008. Time and thyme are not homophones: The effect of lemma frequency on word durations in spontaneous speech. Language, 84(3):474–496. Gahl, S., Yao, Y., and Johnson, K. 2012. Why reduce? phonological neighborhood density and phonetic reduction in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 66(4):789–806. Gahl, S. and Yu, A. C. L. (eds.). 2006. The Linguistic Review: Special Issue on Exemplar-based Models in Linguistics, volume 23. 76 Goldinger, S. D. 1998. Echos of echos? an episodic theory of lexical access. Psychological Review, 105(2):251–279. Selected References
Garrett, Edward. 1999. Minimal words aren't minimal feet. In Matthew Gordon (ed.), UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics, no.1, Papers in Phonology 2, pp 68-105. Graif, Peter. 2011. Signs of signs: Phonological considerations in the linguistics of signed languages. Ms., CUNY GC Linguistics Program, 2011. Hall, Daniel Currie. 2010. Probing the unnatural. Linguistics in the Netherlands 2010:73-85. Hall, Kathleen Currie. 2009. A probabilistic model of phonological relationships from contrast to allophony. PhD dissertation, The Ohio State University. Harrington, J., Palethorpe, S., & Watson, C. 2000. Does the Queen speak the Queen's English? Nature, 408, 927 – 928 Harrington, J. 2007. Evidence for a relationship between synchronic variability and diachronic change in the Queen’s annual Christmas broadcasts. In: J. Cole and J. Hualde (eds.), Laboratory Phonology 9. Berlin: de Gruyter, 125 – 143. Haspelmath, Martin. 2006. Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42: 25-70. Hawkins, S. 2003. Roles and representations of systematic fine phonetic detail in speech understanding. Journal of Phonetics, 31, 373 – 405. Hawkins, S. & Nguyen, N. 2003. Effects on word recognition of syllable-onset cues to syllable-coda voicing. In: J. Local, R. Ogden, and R. Temple (eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology 6. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 38 – 57. Hawkins, S. & Nguyen, N. 2004. Influence of syllable-coda voicing on the acoustic properties of syllable-onset /l/ in English. Journal of Phonetics, 32, 199 – 231 Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hyman, Larry. 2008. Universals in phonology. The Linguistic Review 25: 83–137. Jespersen, Otto. 1904. Lehrbuch der phonetik. (Translated by Hermann Davidsen.) Leipzig: B. G. Teubner. Jurafsky, Daniel, Alan Bell, Michelle Gregory, and William D. Raymond. 2001. Probabilistic Relations between Words: Evidence from Reduction in Lexical Production. In Bybee, Joan and Paul Hopper (eds.). Frequency and the emergence of 77 linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 229-254. Selected References
Kenstowicz, Michael. 1994. Phonology in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Kleber, Felicitas. 2011. Incomplete neutralization and maintenance of phonological contrast in varieties of Standard German. Doctoral dissertation, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich. Kuhl PK. 2004. Early language acquisition: cracking the speech code. Nat Rev Neurosci. 5:831–843. Kuhl PK. 2009. Early language acquisition: neural substrates and theoretical models. In: Gazzaniga MS, editor. The Cognitive Neurosciences. IV. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 837–854. Kuhl, P. 2010. Brain mechanisms in early language acquisition. Neuron. 67(5): 713–727. Kuhl PK, Stevens E, Hayashi A, Deguchi T, Kiritani S, Iverson P. 2006. Infants show facilitation for native language phonetic perception between 6 and 12 months. Dev Sci.;9:F13–F21 Ladefoged, Peter. 1975. A course in phonetics. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich. Longerich, Linda. 1998. Acoustic Conditioning for the RUKI Rule. MA Thesis, Dept. of Linguistics, Memorial University of Newfoundland. Maddieson, Ian. 1984. Patterns of Sounds. Cambridge:CUP. Maddieson, Ian. 2013. Voicing and gaps in plosive systems. In Dryer, Matthew S. and Martin Haspetlmath (eds.) The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library, feature 5. Mann, Daniel. 2014. Typologically rare onset clusters. Ms., The Graduate Center, CUNY. McCarthy, John and Alan Prince. 1986. Prosodic morphology. ms. Amherst: University of Massachussetts. Michael, Lev. 2011. The interaction of tone and stress in the prosodic system of Iquito (Zaparoan, Peru). Amerindia 36. Mielke, Jeff. 2008. The emergence of distinctive features. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Moreton, Elliott. 2008. Analytic bias and phonological typology. Phonology 25. 83–127. Nedjalkov, Igor. 1997. Evenki. New York: Routledge. 78 Nespor, Marina, and Irene Vogel. 1986. Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris. Selected References
O’Dell, M. & Port, R. 1983. Discrimination of word-final voicing in German. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 73(S1), S31(A) Oudeyer, P-Y. 2006. Self-Organization in the Evolution of Speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Parker, Steve. 2002. Quantifying the sonority hierarchy. PhD dissertation, UMass, Amherst. Parker, Steve. 2011. Sonority. In M. van Oostendorp et al. (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, Volume II. Parker, Steve (ed.) 2012. The Sonority Controversy. Berlin: De Gruyter. Pedersen, H. 1895. Das indogermanische s im Slawischen. Indogermanische Forschungen 5:33-87. Peperkamp, Sharon. 2007. Do we have innate knowledge about phonological markedness? Comments on Berent, Steriade, Lennertz and Vaknin. Cognition 104:631-37. Phillips, Timothy C. 2013. Linguistic Comparison of Semai Dialects. SIL International. Pierrehumbert, J. B. 2001. Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast. In Bybee, J. and Hopper, P. J., editors, Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 137–158. Benjamins, Amsterdam. Pierrehumbert, J. B. 2002. Word-specific phonetics. In Gussenhoven, C. and Warner, N., editors, Laboratory Phonology VII. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin: 101-40. Pinker, Steven, and David Birdsong. 1979. “Speakers’ sensitivity to rules of frozen word order.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18:497-508. Port, R., Mitleb, F., & O’Dell, M. 1981. Neutralization of obstruent voicing in German is incomplete. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 70, S13, F10. Pluymaekers, M., Ernestus, M., and Baayen, H. 2005a. Articulatory planning is continuous and sensitive to informational redundancy. Phonetica, 62:146–159. Pluymaekers, M., Ernestus, M., and Baayen, R. H. 2005b. Lexical frequency and acoustic reduction in spoken dutch. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,118(4):2561–2569. Prince, Alan & Paul Smolensky. 1993. Optimality theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms, Rutgers University & University of Colorado, Boulder. Published 2004, Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell. Quinto-Pozos, D. & Adam, R. 2012. Signed language contact. In Oxford University Handbook of Sociolinguistics Rosenstock, R. 2004. An investigation of international sign: Analyzing structure and comprehension. PhD dissertation, Gallaudet University. 79 Selected References
Sankoff, G. & Blondeau, H. 2007. Language change across the lifespan: /r/ in Montreal French. Language 83(3): 560-588 Sandler, Wendy. 1989. Phonological representation of the sign: Linearity and nonlinearity in American Sign Language. Dordrecht: Foris. Sandler, Wendy and Diane Lillo-Martin. 2006. Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sandler, W., M., Aronoff, M., Meir, I., and Padden, C. 2011. The Gradual Emergence of Phonological Form in a New Language. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29: 502-43. Schiering, R., B. Bickel and K. Hildebrant. 2010. The prosodic word is not universal, but emergent. Journal of Linguistics 46: 657-709. Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1978. On prosodic structure and its relation to syntactic structure. In T. Fretheim, ed.,Nordic Prosody II. Trondheim: TAPIR, 111-140. Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1980. Prosodic domains in phonology: Sanskrit revisited. In Mark Aronoff and Marie-Louise Kean, eds., Juncture. Saratoga, CA: Anma Libri, 107-29. Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1984. Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure. Cambridge: MIT Press. Steriade, Donca. 2001. Directional asymmetries in place assimilation: a perceptual account. In E. Hume & K. Johnson (eds.) The role of speech perception in phonology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 219–250. Steriade, Donca. 2008. The phonology of perceptibility effects: The P-map and its consequences for constraint organization. In K. Hanson & S. Inkelas (eds.) The nature of the word: studies in honor of Paul Kiparsky. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 151–180. Sylak-Glassman, John. 2014. Deriving natural classes: The phonology and typology of post-velar consonants. PhD Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. Tamasí, K. and I. Berent. 2014. Sensitivity to Phonologicl Universals: The case of stops and fricatives. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 43(1):1-104. Tamimi, Yasser A. S. Al and Yousef Al Shboul. 2013. Is the phonotactics of the Arabic complex coda sonority-based? Journal of King Saud University Language and Translation 25:21-33. 80 Vaux, Bert. 2002. Consonant epenthesis and the problem of unnatural phonology. Ms, Department of Linguistics, Harvard University. Selected References
Vennemann, T. 1974. Sanskrit Ruki and the concept of a natural class. Linguistics: An International Review 140: 91-98. Vennemann, Theo. 1983. Causality in language change. Theories of linguistic preferences as a basis for linguistic explanations. Folia Linguistica Historica 6:5-26. Verhoef, Tessa, Kirby, Simon & de Boer, Bart. 2014. Emergence of combinatorial structure and economy through iterated learning, Journal of Phonetics 43:57–68 Wedel, Andrew. 2011. Self-Organization in Phonology. In M. van Oostendorp, C. Ewan, E. Hume and K. Rice, eds., The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, Vol. 1, pp. 130-147. Whitney, W. D. 1889. Sanskrit Grammar. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Zuidema, W. and de Boer, B. 2009. The evolution of combinatorial phonology. Journal of Phonetics 37(2):125-144. Zwicky, A. 1970. Greek-letter variables and the Sanskrit ruki Class. Linguistic Inquiry 1:549-55.
81 Phonetic and phonological learning
Three aspects of spoken language make phonological learning complex and distinct from sign-language learning: (i) the majority of sound-meaning correspondences are arbitrary; (ii) the critical period for phonetic learning occurs prior to the end of the first year of life; and (iii) indelible phonological category learning stems from a linkage between sensory and motor experience where “sensory experience with a specific language establishes auditory patterns stored in memory that are unique to that language, and these representations guide infants’ successive motor approximations until a match is achieved”
KUHL 2010 82 Phonetic structure and neural commitment
Native language neural commitment is a term for the implicit learning process that begins before birth and commits the brain’s neural circuitry to the properties of native-language speech. That neural commitment has bi- directional effects: it improves learning for sound patterns that are compatible with the learned phonetic structure, and decreases perception of nonnative patterns or categories that do not match the learned pattern.
KUHL 2004, 2010 83 Learning phonology without phonetics
The acquisition of sign language does not require storage of phonetically detailed auditory representations in the brain, nor the analysis of these within the first year which results in learning of language-specific phonological categories and sound patterns. Similarity of phonological categories across signed languages and the gross visual skills necessary to discern them may result in faster phonological learning past the critical age for spoken language phonology. Mimesis and iconicity in sign language may also speed lexical and grammatical acquisition. 84 How fast can phonology be learned?
International Sign language is used by the Deaf for communication at international events. It is structurally more complex than spoken pidgins, and has iconic and non-iconic signs, an extremely complex grammatical system, and a limited lexicon (Rosenstock 2004, Quinto- Pozos & Adam 2012). The phonology of this language is mobile, making use of handshapes from the signers’ dominant language, contact languages, and conventional International Sign. Fast learning is legend, with training as short as 2-3 days. Could this fast learning reflect the liberation of phonology from auditory native-language neural commitment? 85 How is Evolutionary Phonology different?
• Attempts to explain recurrent sound patterns • Attempts to explain sound pattern frequency • Attempts to identify structural features that trigger or inhibit sound change • Attempts to identify stable sound patterns • Proposes testable hypotheses • Makes no reference to phonological markedness • Makes predictions in diachronic and synchronic domains, e.g. sub-theory of final devoicing
86